Building A Healthy Work Culture With Dugald Topshee

Life happens, and not always the way we expect it to. Every single day we face change, stress, and uncertainty. What if you could learn to thrive no matter what life throws your way? Resilience expert Adam Markel and his inspiring guests explore breakthrough strategies to fully embrace change and build the resilience required to become change-proof.

Hey everybody, welcome back to another episode of The Change Group Podcast. I am your host, Adam Markel, and I'm so happy to be in the seat today and have a great guest, somebody that I met when I was in Ottawa, Canada speaking, keynoting his conference actually, and just struck up this incredible conversation after the event and knew instantly that we were simpatico. You're gonna love this guy. He's very, very intelligent, very thoughtful, and an interesting fellow as well. So let me Read his bio and then we're gonna dive right in. After earning a master's degree in philosophy, Dougal Taubshi translated his passion for information technology into a career in computer programming. He began in the telecommunications sector working with British Telecom in Europe and later with Nortel Networks. After delivering solutions for public and private sector organizations across multiple countries for many years, Dougal became an employee of the Canadian federal government in 2009, first at the Department of Justice, where he served as their CIO. He currently works as the acting Chief Service and Digital Officer at Transport Canada. I know you're going to love this conversation, so sit back and welcome Dougal Taubschi. OK, Dougal, so it's fun to have somebody read all the things about you, your bio, and all that kind of good stuff. I always think it's kind of amusing since I do that a lot and get to hear that a lot. We kind of discount it, but I know it's not your main bag. So I imagine it was fun for you to have that, you know, have somebody list all of your accolades and display your CV and all that good stuff. But my question to you right out of the gate is related to it, but different in that what is one thing, one single thing that is not part of your bio, your history, your work history that you would love for people to know about you at the start of our conversation?

Yeah. I mean, I guess the biggest thing in my life that doesn't form a part of my bio is that I'm a very active athlete. I've been a rugby player for decades. And I have to be honest, when people talk about the most emotional, most resonant experiences that you've had, a lot of people talk about work experience. A lot of them for me came on the rugby field, being the captain of a rugby club for a long time, playing some really intense emotional games, having the chance to win, and having the chance to have really unsuccessful seasons, you know, you learn a lot, you deal with a lot of different people and you bond incredibly quickly. You know, I've had the good fortune of playing here in Canada, but also in the US and the UK, a lot of places and getting to play with a group of people you don't know within an hour, hour and a half of playing that intense high contact rugby football, you end up really close with these guys, guys you never knew before. And, you know, I've always kind of loved that experience and it doesn't, make it into the resume, like you say.

Yeah, you know what? Now I get so much more, 'cause we don't ever plan these, that question. You didn't even know that question was gonna be asked, right? No. At the start. So people sometimes think these things are canned or planned or whatever it is, and it's not. But you and I, we hit it off really well when I came and was able to visit Ottawa and to deliver a keynote to your, large audience about— was about AI, but really was about resilience in the context of AI. And we're gonna get into that in a minute. But you and I really— we really hit it off. And we had a couple of cocktails, if I recall. We had a couple of cocktails. We were tasting this amazing gin, this very, very different sort of a take on gin. And this was, of course, after the conference concluded for the day, just to be, you know, like everybody should know, we were off duty technically, okay? Yeah. But there was something else that we had going on there below the surface that I didn't realize till just now, which was that I played rugby as well. Yeah. I played in England when I was fortunate enough to study there a bit for a while. And there's something about rugby players. I played water polo in college and then played rugby when I was overseas. And those are two sports that I would say, unlike football or, you know, soccer, but— in the US to call it soccer, but everywhere else in the world it's football, right? So it's like football, soccer, is a gentleman's sport played by hooligans, I've heard. And rugby and water polo is a hooligan sport played by gentlemen. And so it takes one to know one, buddy.

Yeah.

We were simpatico because it is interesting that in those sports where you really can, you know, like, it's very, very physical. Like, it's very— and for those of you that don't know rugby, right? It's American football without equipment, okay? Right. On some level, it's harder, you know, I think on the body even for that reason, but for other reasons. And then to see how, despite the fact that there is all that physical contact, that there's— I didn't witness a lot of injuries personally, The people take care, like you're taken care of. Like you don't do anything cheap. There's not cheap play that's happening 'cause you are so exposed and vulnerable. And then what would go on after these matches at the pub between opposing teams, you know, that were killing each other on the field, but literally were arm in arm, like singing songs and, you know, and just slugging, you know, pints.

Yeah.

It was just beautiful, right? Like, it's what the camaraderie.

Yeah, that's how it, I think that's how it should be, right? You play incredibly hard, you're trying to like kill each other. And then after the game, like you say, it becomes really friendly. It's a funny thing about the injuries. I met a guy once who did, worked as a physiotherapist and an athletic trainer with the Winnipeg Ballet and with the National Rugby Team of Canada. And he said he had more injuries from the ballet, the ballerinas, than he did from the rugby players. At least more complicated ones. But yeah, no, it's always been like that. And that's one of the traditions I loved when I played in the UK that, you know, after the game you get together and the home team feeds the visiting side. And of course you always buy a drink for your opposite number, right? And that starts right away. It's a great social experience and you get to meet people quickly. And to me, the biggest thing is when you're playing, you don't really know people well. It's like you say, a very physical sport and some people step up and they're gonna be there beside you making that tackle, helping you bring someone down. And once you've seen that from people, you just feel like that kind of bond, it's a great and special kind of quick attachment I think you form.

Yeah, I won't belabor the point for our listeners that might be like, "Oh, these guys are gonna talk about rugby the whole time, or what?" You know? But I'll just say in the world that we're living in, and we all know what that world is, nobody needs a reminder or to have some of the same words used again and again and again. I think the example of that that you play hard on the field, but that you genuinely appreciate the— Like, there's humanity that is both in the game, but then outside of the game that we see the big picture. And so, you know, it's not like people don't behave badly or, you know, I've seen plenty of fights. They don't last long in rugby, you know, like in a pub, incidentally. Yeah. But, But the idea that you can, you know, see the bigger picture outside of it. Maybe the bigger picture, LOL, is like the drinking that goes on, and the fantastic drinking experience that occurs after one of those matches. But that would be missing the deeper point, which is that there's a genuine respect—

Yeah.

—and I'd even use the word love, that exists between people, combatants, Yeah. Put it all out there on the field and live to tell the, to talk about it with each other and laugh.

Yeah, I completely agree. Laughing about it is the point. Like I was gonna say mutual respect as well. And that's what you want, right? Is to play against and with people that love the game and love that kind of competition. And you know, when you have a laugh and shake hands with the guy who tackled you incredibly hard, right? Or if you get one over on somebody, it's, you know, it's great to have that kind of mutual respect. And like you say, if you take it off the rugby pitch, I think that's the expectation that we can have even when times are difficult. Hopefully we can respect each other, right? Have that mutual respect even if we're kind of competing against each other in some ways. At least we're kind of doing it the right way and respectfully. I think that's, I think that's the country and the, I guess the world could use more of that, quite honestly.

Yeah. So Dougal, just as I think this is a great segue into, into I think the, you know, what we were gonna talk about today too, which is I'd love for you to lay out a little bit of the role that you're in.— as well as the challenge, because I think even before recording, we were talking about just what an uncertain world we're in, you know, markets and other things. So, so will you just kind of lay a— create a context for us in terms of your— what you— what you're seeing in your role?

Yeah, sure. So I'm the acting assistant deputy minister and chief service and digital officer here at Transport Canada. So we're part of the federal government in Canada. We regulate the transportation sector. And my responsibility is kind of to run all the digital programs, all the IT, the information management, and the services. We provide kind of oversight over how to deliver services to Canadians and internally to all of our staff. And being at Transport, it applies across the board. So everything from the, you know, providing the overall guidelines for road safety and what kind of equipment cars can be manufactured here, what the rules are that they should be subject to, inspecting the trains, the airplanes, the marine traffic through the country. All that kind of work falls under the, you know, the proviso of Transport Canada. And so I provide— my team, I should say, provides digital tools to support that, ways for Canadians to interact directly with us if they need to get a license to drive a motorboat, for instance, or certification as a pilot or air traffic controller. We build the applications to help deliver those things. And of course, now we're in a position where increasingly people are used to a really advanced digital experience. So the biggest question for us is how do we give them that same same kind of feeling they get when they're using like an iPhone or an Android smartphone, getting this really sophisticated modern app. Can we try to emulate that kind of ease and efficiency with the stuff that we do? And how do we do that being, you know, within the federal government? How can we manage the fact that the government has a lot of complicated expenses coming out of the pandemic? We need to get a control on the spending in the government, but if there's less money, we need to increase efficiency some other way. And of course, the big topic that, you know, I think you mentioned earlier is artificial intelligence and what that, what is that going to mean for us, especially from a public sector context? We have to be very respectful, right? The AI has to be developed ethically, has to follow appropriate principles. And increasingly, of course, in Canada, we have to make sure that we're using sovereign solutions that aren't controlled by foreign companies. So a lot of concerns that we're wrestling with and, you know, I have a great team, several hundred people that are developing these solutions and figuring out how we can make this department more efficient and get it to provide the kind of services people expect in a changing world.

What would you say is the greatest challenge that's sort of facing your workforce these days? I mean, the word uncertainty again has come up so frequently and burnout and a lot of other things, but yeah, what are you seeing? What's your experience in terms of what's really, creating the greatest sort of impediment to a greater expression of innovation, et cetera, productivity even in the workplace?

Yes, I think, you know, it's an interesting question. I think the biggest problem that we have, so I've been in the IT space for a long time, for decades, right? And the challenge is trying to find a connection between the people who know the job that you're trying to improve, right? That have that deep work experience and the more technical people that develop the solutions, right? Your programmers, like I have a lot of great programmers here, but they can kind of get into the weeds. And I would say one of the challenges that we've always had is how you figure out what the overall vision is for building like enterprise systems that can be used everywhere. Because we've had a tendency in the past, if I'm completely honest, you get a really keen client who's like, we need to do this specific thing so that we can improve the way that we inspect ships that are loading bulk grain onto them. And unfortunately, I have these great developers that they start hearing about the problems, they go, "Oh yeah, yeah, I can do that and that," and they start solving the problem. And often there's no one to take a step back and say, "Okay, but how do we solve the problem generally so that it doesn't only work with a giant ship loaded with soy or barley, but it also works if we're inspecting rail cars or railway tracks or airplane cockpits and so on?" Mm-hmm. And so I think that's probably our biggest challenge is that how do we find the right kind of enterprise perspective and the kind of person, you know, sometimes we call them unicorns in Myspace, who can combine that knowledge, okay, this is what the business needs, this is how they do their work with enough technical understanding to kind of give clear instructions to computer programmers so that we don't end up with 400 different applications when we should really have like 10.

Sort of the ability to think big and think small. Yes. This idea of sort of short, understand the imperatives of short term of the things that happen in the short term.

Yeah.

But also really see what long term looks like.

Yeah, I would agree with that because to be perfectly honest, it's really well said that think big but also think small because one of the ways that you can do things wrong and sadly, you know, we've had some big examples of this even in the Canadian federal government, not all of our IT projects have gone as well as we'd like. Sometimes you can try to build a giant system that's gonna solve every problem, but you kind of build it like a castle in the sky and you lose that connection to the ground. And so then you end up with this giant system that's supposed to do everything for everyone and you say, okay, big bang, let's move everyone onto it. And that's when you start to see all the problems. It's a much better approach, like you say, to have an idea of what the big picture is, but build something small and specific that you can gradually add to in order to develop it out. A cluster model, I think, is the way we like to talk about it now, 'cause that's been successful. Start with a small piece and then add people from a cluster of similar like-minded organizations or people that need the same kind of thing and build from there. So that's what we're trying to do nowadays.

I want to talk about culture and not sort of culture writ large, but business or organizational culture, 'cause you're in a business, but yet it's also government. It's public service, but it's nonetheless, it's still a business. I mean, it's probably the only business that can operate— actually, no, because this happens in tech as well— to operate at a loss, to continue to operate with a budget that's upside down. Yeah, I scratch that because that seems to be the norm these days somehow. But let's just say from an organizational standpoint, what is what is the culture? What are you noticing about culture? So I don't sort of want you to like give your own culture grade. I mean, you could certainly say what's working, what's not working, and all that. But like, what are you noticing in organizational culture, in the culture of your organization? Because it might speak to some of what you said earlier, which is, you know, is it a skill set? Is it a mindset? Like, what— Because if we want people that can can see both large and small, be able to really take in the totality of things. You know, is that something that you can train? Is that something that can be— you can onboard or be part of the culture, the DNA of an organization or of a structure so that everybody kind of can, you know, experience that? Or is that— or is it, you know, sort of like trying to put a round peg in a square?

Yeah.

Yeah, no, it's an excellent question. I guess to your first point about the need for profit, you're— yeah, I will say it's a little harder for us to spend taxpayer money than to spend venture capital money if you're like one of these tech companies that doesn't need to post a profit for years. But yeah, in our case, like you say, we have to be very cautious even though we're not trying to make a profit. We do have to spend the money appropriately. And when it comes to culture, you know, it's an interesting question, Adam, because it's something I've been wondering about for years, right? There's all these people out there literally running running business schools and everything, teaching leadership and things like that. And I've always wondered if it's something that really can be taught or not. Some people kind of have the right skill for this. And I think my education was in philosophy, and I think philosophy's actually a fantastic field of study for people because it teaches you to think generally, to reason, to make arguments. And I think one of the unintended consequences of a philosophy degree is what we do, right? Is in philosophy, you're early on, you realize it's much, much easier to tear apart other people's ideas than to actually come up with your own new ideas for how to do things. And so you, of course, get a lot of practice tearing each other's arguments apart, but you also learn to separate your emotional feelings about it from the argument that you that you've made. And one of the problems about corporate culture that I see, not just in the public service, you know, I've worked a long time in the private sector as well, but I think all over the place is some people just have a very difficult time separating the emotional side from the idea that they've made. So when it comes to trying to deliver a transformative solution and technology or a new service to Canadians, you want to have an open discussion free argument about what the best solution is, what's right and what's wrong about it. And I find there's a tendency for some people to get caught up in whether it was their idea or not and lose touch with the goal, which has got to be corporate. Like, we're trying to deliver this service. Doesn't matter who's going to get the credit, and it doesn't matter who put the ideas forward. One of the things that I think, whether it's possible to teach it or not, it has to be shown from on high. One of my core principles is the worst way of making decisions is the highest paid opinion rule. It's absolutely the worst. And as I said, in philosophy, that has to be the way you approach things. It's about the logic of your argument and the strength and accuracy of your premises. And that's all that matters. Doesn't matter who came up with it, it just matters how strong the argument is. So I think that's been an advantage that I've had for a while. And so circling back to your question about culture, I think that's what you have to embed in the organization is that corporate sense. We're all headed to the same goal. We're not trying to play politics, get ahead of each other or compete with one another. And we're definitely not just waiting to see what the highest paid person thinks and agreeing with what they say. No, it's gotta be about how strong are the arguments, who's making the best case. And increasingly nowadays, what is the evidence saying? Don't just assume that you're right. Test and then move forward if your test proves that you're right. Right? So evidence-based decision making. And always having off-ramps and milestones in your project. So if things aren't going the right way, you pivot, you do something different.

Yeah. How important is it to be able to fail?

So it's funny because that's actually a complicated question for the public service because of course it's very big in say Silicon Valley, right? Or I should say in, in Ottawa here, we had a huge tech sector as well. You gotta be able to fail fast and learn from it. When it comes to the public sector, there's a bit of a sense that you have to be careful because you shouldn't be failing with taxpayers' money. But I think it's definitely important to have the right kind of failure. You got to be able to learn. The last thing you can do is, is have a big failure that doesn't teach you anything. And increasingly, I hope this is going to prove to be the case, we're more willing, I think, to learn from other people's failures as well. So certainly, In the public sector community, there's a lot of exchange. We talk all the time to similar organizations in different jurisdictions around the world and within Canada to find out what did they try that didn't work? What did they try? Where did they fail? How can we learn from it? Because you can learn these lessons without going through the painful process of failing yourself. But yeah, to me, the right kind of failure is a failure that you learn from, where you actually figure something out and then you move forward.

Yeah, that really makes a lot of sense and is logical. And my training as a lawyer, and first as an English major, different than philosophy, but similar in that literary criticism was about making an argument, creating a, you know, sort of a theory of the case, if you will, before I was— you know, and then pursuing it or making the best argument based on the information and how you could spin it, really. So that was a good lead-in to being a lawyer, 'cause— Every case was based basically that you could take the facts and argue them one way or the other. But, you know, the most compelling argument typically was the winner. But it had to be logical, as you say, because emotions, while they play well to the jury in theory, and while they're great for TV and movies, like in the real world, that's not very rarely the case, you know? So it has to be logical. When I hear you talk about failure, I— I certainly see that my dad was a civil servant for 30 years. And so, I realize that we're more intolerant in that environment of, you know, quote, "failing." So, maybe I chunk it down and ask a different question, which is, how important are mistakes?

Mm-hmm. Again, I think mistakes are— it doesn't help you if you don't learn anything from a mistake, right? Constantly do something wrong and you're not bothering to learn. I think mistakes though are extremely important. But what I would say, the way you put the two together is introspection. I think in a leader, you have to be able to look into yourself and try to understand things. And if you have that natural way of kind of looking and judging yourself and what you've done, why did I arrive at this? How did I come to this? I think that's how you're going to learn. from the mistakes that you made, right? Because ideally, you don't repeat them. You learn something and then you move on, and it's not something that you kind of continue to do. So, yeah, to me, very important, right? It would be ludicrous to think you're going to get through life not making mistakes. And I would say that, yeah, being afraid to do it— There you go. Right.

That's what's going to stop you. Isn't that— you really, really like dialed— I feel like you touched something so important to all of us because on some level, who hasn't been raised with some— to some degree, whether it's, like, expressly programmed or it was implied in some way that it is better to not make mistakes? In fact, let's say it differently.

Yeah.

It is better to avoid making mistakes at almost you know, any cost than to the consequences that come from them. So, where does that translate into, as you were saying earlier, the reason I'm tracking this in my own brain, just 'cause it might not be transparent at the moment why, but when you were talking about this ability to sort of see the big picture, but also, you know, be able to dial into how you get there so that it's not just all pie in the sky, it's not building castles in air, but we have to stay, you know, connected ground and earth. And so to be able to do both of those things is— it— you can't do that from a place of fear. And certainly, I don't— I don't think you can do that from a place of avoidance either, of trying to avoid—

Yeah.

Failing or avoid making mistakes. And I think where I've seen at least in— and I'm not a Canadian citizen, I'm a US citizen— but where I've seen failures in civil servants, civil service, or in government, or poli— you know, in our civics here in this country, it's in that sort of mediocrity.

Yeah.

That space of mediocrity that comes from simply trying to avoid error.

Yeah, I think you're absolutely right, Adam Markel. What I would say, one of the things that's interesting, if there's one way that I was, you know, I'd be not too arrogant to say I might have distinguished myself a little bit, certainly something I noticed as I became an executive in the public service, one of the things that surprised people was that I would make decisions. You know, they'd come and they'd brief you and they'd have recommendations and I'd say, great, okay, I agree with your recommendation, let's do it. And a lot of times, I hate to say it, a lot of times I'd be met with shock and surprise.

Shock, right.

Because they couldn't believe that, you know, someone was willing to actually make a decision. I think there is unfortunately a lot of that reluctance to step forward and decide things, right? To take ownership and say, okay, this is what we're doing. I think you get to it through principle, right? We have a code of values and ethics. It means a lot to me as a public servant to follow it. You got to understand what it means. As long as you know you're acting in the right way, you're doing the right thing with the right intentions, then you do it. You make the decision, you move forward, and if it's wrong, well, then you'll deal with the consequences later. And for me, as a leader, you also have to embed that culture in your staff so that the people— like, from my perspective, you have standing operating procedures, standard operating procedures to protect the frontline staff. They have a list of things that they have to do, and they're like, no, this is how it works. So they can deal with the volume of requests that they have to deal with. But you have managers, well, their job is to interpret and decide when to make an exception, when to do the right things. They should understand the principles, and they should be empowered to take those decisions. And that's why, like, to me, you just, you protect them. And if they make a mistake, you like, you know, like they always say, you correct in private and you compliment in public. And I think that's ideally, that's the culture that I strive to create here where I'm willing to be the one to make decisions and I'm willing to defend decisions that are made by the people that work for me. And if, you know, if we need to make corrections afterwards, then we go and do it. But I think you put your finger right on a point that's really important. Too many people maybe are afraid to step forward and make a decision at all. And that is what causes, I think, the mediocrity you alluded to in some places.

Right. All this consensus, sort of established consensus to the point where at some point, whatever the idea du jour was, good, bad, or otherwise, it's sort of like it disappears, you know? Or if any decision is somehow made that nobody can point a finger at whose it was, right? Yeah. But I'm a fan of this term blameless problem solving as well, which is a really interesting take on how you create— 'Cause I actually wanna ask you this question. I'm gonna save that. This idea of blameless problem solving creates something in a culture. I'm also thinking, as we're speaking that it's the idea of sort of whatever the converse of that is. Maybe you can help me come up with the language for this of how it is that you— it's not like don't celebrate a success, but who's— to your point earlier, like whose victory is it? It's our victory. It's not an individual's victory. But it's like whose credit, who gets credit? It's almost like blameless. It's that concept. What's the inverse of blameless problem solving as applies to the credit that's given to somebody that came up with the idea in the first place.

Yeah.

Anything come to mind for you?

I know. I think to me, we succeed as an organization, right? Like that has to be the idea. We all share in the benefits of success, right? We don't like fight over credit. Like I said earlier, we are all just proud of the accomplishment. And in my case, I don't know, I guess I've just kind of always had a corporate mindset, right? Like whether I was, when I was in the private sector, in the public sector now, you gotta think in terms of the goals of the organization and you have to approach everything that way. I think the way that people get into trouble is they start to think too much about their own personal interest when like, that's not the job, right? We're not, you know, you don't get paid and hired to take care of your own personal interest. You get hired to take care of the interests of your organization. And it's sad to me that not everyone seems to kind of naturally come with this attitude. And in some cases, quite honestly, you don't get rewarded for thinking that way, right? You, you are often in some places more likely to get rewarded for self-promotion and for making a big case. But the right way for things to work is for credit always to be shared across the entire organization, right? And, and reflect it onto everybody. I don't know. It's an interesting thing. I know one of the things that we'll do is we'll have awards or recognition for a really successful project or group that have accomplished something. And I've always been reluctant to, and it sounds maybe unfair, but to share the credit too widely because what ends up happening is sometimes they'll give an award for really successful work and they'll give it out to 50 people. Interesting. And you know that some of those people, 8, 10 maybe, were hugely involved and did an incredible amount of work. And some of them just happened to sign off or get involved at some point towards the end. And ironically, I find people are less happy about getting recognition if it just kind of goes out with this broad brush and paints across everybody because they all know who really contributed. and who didn't.

Right.

And so I kind of like the idea of trying to democratize it somehow and saying, hey, who is most deserving? Ask the group who did the most, who is the most successful in delivering this, and then take it from there. Identify the 3, 4, maybe 5 or 6 key people who contributed. I think to me, that's always a much more impressive thing than giving out all these different people recognition for something, even though Some were hugely involved, essential, and others just kind of passed through.

We have a lot of leaders that listen to this show. And by leaders, I mean across the board, people, leaders at the very, you know, very most senior levels and plenty of people in the middle as well are just getting started. So I think what I love about what you just said is I think it's, you know, for somebody that's maybe driving, they pull over and write that down or send themselves a text, you know, message to remind, because I think that's a great process to really, In figuring out how you do reward or acknowledge and celebrate a success, that you really find out from the peers themselves, anybody that was involved, who they think, you know, anonymously, obviously.

Yeah, yeah.

You know, to figure that part out. So this idea of the blameless problem solving, I just wanna come back to that for a second. How would you describe, you know, what does it take from a cultural standpoint And in part I'm asking because I'm a researcher on that. I've got a book, uh, and I say I, but it's, it's a we for sure. It's a complete team that goes into this. But our, our book is called Reculture, and it's coming out in June. It's our, our newest book based on research and anecdotes, anecdotal evidence, etc., um, and philosophy, and hopefully some logic too. Um, but I, I'm curious on the, on the side of that blameless problem solving, What kind of a culture do you think— how would you describe a culture where that's more the rule than it is the exception?

Yeah, it's a great question, and it's one that I've actually often wondered about because I've had the good fortune in my career of being a part of some truly great teams, right? Both, like I said, on the rugby field, but also professionally. And you can tell the difference, right? It has an energy, a cohesiveness, and it's that To me, it's that sense of a common purpose. And I can distinctly remember back when I worked for, in the private sector, I worked in an organization at Nortel Networks many years ago, and we had this really tight group. Everyone would pull for each other. We all had individual assignments, but if someone got behind, everyone would dive in and they'd like, they'd go out of their way. And we had one person join the team briefly who just didn't share that culture. And it kind of upset the whole apple cart because it was like, same thing happened. We were falling behind. And, you know, so everyone pulled together, started working on this thing and, well, he just left for the day, right? At 4 o'clock or whatever. And we're wandering around looking for him as 3 of his colleagues are desperately trying to meet a deadline. He's already left. And it was so shocking because of course, for everyone else on the team, it was about the team, right? Like we have, we've never missed a deadline and we all care a lot about it. So to answer your question, you know, I look back on that. I was part of another great team in the government. I used to work in a different department years ago. I'm going for Christmas dinner with them later this week because they reached out and they said, hey, a couple of the former players, like employees who are retired now, we all get back together for the same reason, right? It was a really cohesive team. Everyone believed in the mission that we were trying to— Yeah. Achieve. But, you know, you asked how do you go about creating that? I mean, I wish I knew, eh? Some teams are just special and they have that kind of close-knit bond. I guess to actually try to answer your question, I would say really it's about that sense of a larger goal, right? Greater than the sum of the individual parts.

Yes.

And in the case when I was working at Nortel, it was we've never missed a deadline. We're good at this. We have pride in our collective ability to deliver. And similarly, when I was— this was at the Department of Justice here in Canada, we had this really great project to deliver. Everyone believed in it. We all worked together. We accomplished an incredible amount, a really successful project. And so we've ever since, we've all had pride in being part of that and achieving these goals that were kind of bigger than any one of us. So I guess that's a key part of it, that sense of cohesion and bonding over something greater than, you know, the individual people. But yeah, yeah, it's how to create it. I wish I knew.

It's, it's, it's so interesting, um, the, uh, you sort of— it becomes a part of your identity. So for me, that, that, that place that I use as a defining, uh, environment and an experience in early, early life for me was as a lifeguard at the beach, right? Yes, very involved dramatic, sort of life-and-death context, and, you know, all that kind of stuff. And our small team was really, really skilled, or lucky, or whatever you want to call it. Like, we were successful as a team after a tragedy showed us, you know, something else. And where we decided that our mission, our purpose, like you say, the thing that was greater than ourselves— Yeah. —was this idea that no one would go down on our watch. Watched, that this idea that nobody would go down in our water, literally. And that sort of— that became such a strong point of buy-in for all of us that we worked together and we were successful. We refer to that as a sort of a "got your back" environment versus, in some respects, the one where people are competing against each other is like a "watch your back." Yeah. Environment. And that this is the way we kind of refer to it lately is just this distinction between those two. Kind of feel it, you know, know it when you feel it, know it when you see it kind of things. 'Cause you can't— 'Cause you go, "Well, what creates a got your back culture?" And you can list a bunch of different things, of course. Mm-hmm. But you kind of know it when you experience it.

Yeah.

And you know what it feels like to be on the other end of it when you're watching out for yourself before you're watching out for the team because who else? You know, because— and the rationale is always, you know, it is sort of a reasonable rationalization that says, "If I don't watch out for myself, nobody's gonna watch out for me. How is that gonna help me and my pursuits in life and my family or whatever the things, you know, my priorities?" So, everybody sort of watches out for themselves. And that, from a cultural standpoint, is really a very different environment than the ones that you were describing, the ones that I can think of— Yeah.

Yeah, no, I think it becomes toxic ultimately. Yeah. And I mean, I should say, you actually talked about that.

I feel like that's the norm though.

Yeah. Unfortunately, in a lot of places, I guess—

That's the norm, right?

I have to be honest, it hasn't been in my experience. I've been very lucky, but then I've also had the privilege of— I got skills, I've got confidence. I'll go where the work takes me, and I have been laid off before, and it's always worked out really well. So I would never stay in a place that kind of has that toxic sort of culture, I think.

Yeah.

But no, I mean, I would say I should take a second just to say that, you know, you spoke about that lifeguarding experience at our professional development week for DPI and, you know, you knocked it out of the park. It was a fantastic talk. And I think it's a really nice way of expressing it too, the got your back versus watch your back. I guess to me, the one strand that we haven't explicitly mentioned yet is authenticity, right? And I think, in a watch your back environment, you don't believe that people are being authentic, right? They're often very nice, smiling, saying the right things, but you don't trust what they're saying. Whereas in a got your back environment, you can expect your colleagues to hold you accountable because you have that trust and belief in them. And you can have healthy conflict and disagreement and say, no, this is the wrong way to do this. But you respect it and you believe it. And you can stay. Yes, exactly. Because you're going to support each other. And so I think we have a natural ability to kind of sense what's authentic and what's not. And if you get a few too many people into a group that are saying one thing but meaning something different, I think that's how you're going to completely eliminate the got your back mentality. Because now everyone, like you said earlier, is going to start thinking, well, do I have to watch out then? Because I don't trust some of the people on this team. And it just breeds a lack of trust all the way through, I think.

And maybe this is a great place for us to kind of land the plane, is to sort of come back to something we started talking about at the very beginning, close the loop there. But in that sports context— and I know not everybody's a sports fan, and not everybody's been a person who's gotten involved, whether you've been athletic or not, you know— but it is a great analogy for this, whether you come from that place or not. And I think a lot of people do as well. On the field, there's just— you can't hide. There's no authenticity on the field. How you are is, you know, how you do anything is how you do everything, is an old, like, a really exacting sort of a standard. But it shows up so visibly on the field of play, or in the field of play, that you can't hide from it.

I agree.

So, maybe it's just a little bit more easy to determine Yeah, no, I think it is.

It's like you say, it's all very visible. And that's why, I mean, personally, and I think it's true of all of us that played a lot of sports, we love the players that just do the right thing all the time. I'm a huge Tim Duncan fan, obviously, because I'm a San Antonio Spurs fan. And the big fundamental is just always doing the right play to win the game. And he didn't care about anything else. And you and I both know there are guys in the NBA that are thinking about their next contract or are deliberately missing a shot to collect the rebound to give themselves a triple-double. That's the kind of thing that a player like a Tim Duncan would never do because he's always focused on winning the game regardless of who gets the credit, regardless of how it happens. And that's the kind of attitude I think you see, like you say, when people are playing sports. And that's the kind of person, let's be honest, that you want to be around, right? Team first, obsessed with the goals of the team above any individual goals.

Yeah. I just— Dougal, I love the conversation that you and I had after the conference when we were standing around with that robot that was there and was answering my questions. That was so trippy.

I mean, really cool. Yeah, I should mention too, the gin from the Dunrobin Distillery here just outside of Ottawa, the Earl Grey gin, very nice stuff from them. Earl Grey gin. Oh, man. Truly memorable.

Well, thank you, my friend. I consider you a friend.

Pleasure.

And now I know we have even more in common, which, you know, sometimes when you just vibe with somebody, you don't even know exactly why. But the fun of it is to figure out why, I guess, or to have that be revealed. So, thank you for making the time to join us on the show today. I really appreciate your time.

I was glad to do it. It was very nice to see you again, Adam, and all the best.

Thank you again. Well, I think you would agree that did not disappoint. Dougal is, again, thoughtful. Such an interesting, interesting person. And you can tell that he genuinely cares about things. He thinks about things. He's got that wonderful— as we were talking about, that wonderful combination of being able to see big things, see vision, have a vision, and yet also dial in on the small stuff. Think big and also think small. I loved our conversation today about— about information technology, about culture, about just the kind of things that are challenging folks in the workforce. He spends a lot of time in artificial intelligence in the federal government in Canada, and in particular as relates to transportation and transportation services. He's a leader, and I would say a leader of leaders. That's how I would sort of frame him up. And you could tell, just by the way he thinks about things and talks about things, that his perspective is one that's inclusive, that is not elitist or sort of, you know, looking at things through silos, but rather is really broad-based in how it is that we develop these structures within an organization to bring out the best in people. Similar to the way that— on a team, in his case, a rugby team, and in my case, was a water polo team, but also a rugby team for a short while as well. How do you develop a system of play that brings out the best in people? And he and I talked a lot about, in various contexts, both personal and in business, how do you create environments where people feel like other people have their backs versus— Yeah. An environment, a system, a structure where people feel like they must watch their backs. So, I love that discussion. I think it's very relevant in the world that we're living in today, whether you're in the private sector or the public sector, and also in our personal lives as well, in our lives that are members of broader community. So, if this is an episode that you also enjoyed, and I hope that you have, that you'll share it with somebody, that you let someone— family member, friend, colleague know about it by simply sending them a link to it. If you could give us a review, a rating, uh, on, on the platform that you consume this podcast, whether that's on Apple, iTunes, whatever that platform might be, we appreciate it. Spotify, any of those, a 5-star rating is always great. We know it takes you time to do it, so please accept our appreciation. And I mean that sincerely, both for taking the time if you do that, but, but even more so for just being a part of this community, for, for joining us, uh, for leaving your comments, as many of you do, at adammarkel.com/podcast. You can leave a comment for me or for Dougal right there, and we can respond to that in real time, um, not through a bot, not through an agent, but us ourselves. For now anyway, I just want to thank you once again for being a part of all that we're doing here. Wish you a beautiful rest of your day, your evening, wherever we find you, that you are feeling good, that you are doing things to take care of yourself, to be more resilient, and that you are leaning into the change that is everywhere. We have to all be change-proof. I think that's ultimately one of the most important skills that any of us have in our personal lives or professional lives, that we're able to adapt and be adaptable to the constant change that is the new— not just the new norm, but the now norm. Yeah. And will likely continue to be the case for very, very long periods of time. It is the way of the universe, after all. Thank you so much again. And I'll just say ciao for now.

Thanks for listening. We hope you now have even more tools and greater insights to build resilience and become change-proof. Remember to leave a review on Apple Podcasts, and you may be featured in an upcoming episode. For more resilience tips and strategies, including support for building change-proof teams, visit adammarkel.com. To get your own free resilience assessment, go to rankmyresilience.com.